Pentax announces that they're working on new film cameras!

[armadsen]

Ricoh/Pentax has announced that they’re working on designing new film cameras. This video has the details:

In summary, they recognize the demand for film cameras, and that there are only a very few new film cameras available. Meanwhile older cameras have service and spare parts constraints.

They have started making a concerted effort to have older and retired engineers with film camera knowledge teach younger engineers so the knowledge isn’t lost.

They will start with a compact 35mm camera, then a premium compact, then an SLR, with their ultimate goal being to eventually produce a fully mechanical SLR.

I think this news was inevitable, but also I’m very excited about it. I don’t use Pentax gear (except for the Auto 110), but I will 100% buy what they come out with just to support the good people doing the work to make this happen.

 

[PrairiePhotographer]

Very interesting how they are blending "old timers" with young engineers. As a bit of an old timer myself, I'm cheering for them!

I didn't hear (or more accurately, read in the subtitles) any mention of medium format. That would be cool, but so would any type of "fully mechanical SLR".

 

[runswithsizzers]

Wow! I did not see that coming. I will be very interested to see what they come up with (if successful). I am presently using two Pentax MX cameras with good results. Hopefully the SMCP K-mount lenses I already have will work with the new model.

 

[armadsen]

Another teaser video here:

K-Mount seems likely enough, since their current lens lineup is still K Mount.

I’m an engineer myself, in my late 30s, and also very much cheering for the “don’t let the old knowledge get lost” attitude.

 

[gone]

It would be great if it actually happens, although I don't know why they need to go through all these different models to get to a mechanical camera. All they need to do is reverse engineer any successful film camera, and that takes care of any "lost" knowledge, it would be right there in front of them. It really isn't rocket science, these things were perfected eons ago.

Having worked in marketing and market research, I know if this is true they've already run the numbers based on expected sales to which demographics, and to what price range.

We'll see, I'm not from Missouri, but have their same idea of show me.

 

[beemermark]

As a Mechanical Engineer (a very old ME) reverse engineering is never as easy and simple as it sounds. For example you need to reverse engineer the tools to that made that 1970 camera, you need to determine the materials used and where they were sourced. Just a couple of things off the top of my head.

 

[armadsen]

Agreed. Being able to see a working example certainly helps, but the end result of any serious engineering effort includes a lot of small details where the why — including the many failed iterations that came before — are not obvious.

I’m other words, you can’t see the thousands of little, non-obvious lessons learned from experience just by looking at something.

When Nikon made the S3 and SP special editions, despite their goal being an exact replica, they still had to bring back old engineers to help figure it all out.

 

[albada]

Pentax presently manufactures the K1, a full-frame DSLR. That gives them the electronics and mechanics for iris stop-down, shutter, mirror, focus screen, prism, eyepiece optics, and metering. That's a big head-start in designing a film camera. Also, Ricoh owns Pentax, giving them access to more retired engineers. I think they'll do fine.

 

[Sharktooth]

I'm waiting for Pentax, or any of the big guys, to give us a full frame digital sensor that can be easily retrofit into existing film cameras. The sensor could go in the film plane, and the electronics and battery in the film compartment. No display screen, and limited settings, due to size and power constraints, but that sort of matches the film ethic too. If they plan on making a new SLR, then why not something that could easily do both film and digital via an easy back swap. A stripped down 70's styling seems to be what people want these days, so why not something that can do both film and digital with that same mindset?

I'd gladly pay a grand to get a digital sensor that could fit in my film cameras. This would give me the freedom to shoot with both digital and film, using something I'm already comfortable with. Some medium format cameras used to offer this ability, but most of them have gone out of business now, or are out of any realistic pricing for the average person.

Young people that want to try film are clearly looking for something different from the instant gratification you get from a cell phone. Bring back the magic of discovery by eliminating display screens and forcing people to think about what they're trying to capture, instead of just clicking at anything.

C'mon, Pentax, give this ol' geezer the goods!

 

[Huss]

Nice to see a hipster presenting the announcement.

 

[ooze]

Very exciting news! I wonder what kind of time frame they are planning.

 

[koraks]

All they need to do is reverse engineer any successful film camera, and that takes care of any "lost" knowledge, it would be right there in front of them. It really isn't rocket science, these things were perfected eons ago.

Maybe - but maybe not. A film camera sure isn't rocket science, but still, if you look at your average product development process in the manufacturing industry, it's always a couple of processes happening at the same time. There's the product development track, but there's also process development, underlying technology development and of course the various administrative and strategic processes in the business area. The more technical processes ultimately manifest themselves in the tangible product, but you can't always reconstruct them entirely based on just the resulting product. So recreating a product, even with today's more advanced technology, is likely going to involve a couple of moments of "how the heck did they do that", as well as a few "why on earth did they do it this way" to be followed with some instances of "oh, now I see..." a couple of prototypes later. Keep in mind also that the product you make is influenced by the (im)possibilities of manufacturing technology, so studying a product from let's say 40 years ago can involve a couple of riddles that make perfect sense if you know the nature of the manufacturing processes at the time.

And that's not even addressing the obvious issue of the present generation of engineers likely never having been bothered by questions of how to handle film in a camera. There's likely a couple of particularities in this, which were all figured out a couple of decades ago, and that can only indirectly and partly be implied from studying a particular camera.

Long story short, I think it's certainly helpful to involve a couple of old geezers in a project like this as it'll likely progress a lot faster that way.

I think it's an interesting exercise; over the years, I've talked to hundreds of people involved in the manufacturing industry (many different domains, functions, types of organizations) and one of the common occurrences is that we forget yesterday's technology nearly as fast as we introduce new innovations.

 

[lxdude]

It would be great if it actually happens, although I don't know why they need to go through all these different models to get to a mechanical camera. All they need to do is reverse engineer any successful film camera, and that takes care of any "lost" knowledge, it would be right there in front of them. It really isn't rocket science, these things were perfected eons ago.

Hardly. You have no idea how quickly knowledge can be lost, and how difficult it can be to reverse-engineer a product, as well as reestablishing old methods and processes or adapting modern methods and processes to the job in their place. It can be astonishing how much know-how is only in peoples' heads; one retirement can mean a whole body of specific knowledge is lost. I have first-hand experience with this, and it amazes me how much knowledge is never written down.

This detailed account of what it took to reproduce in 2000 the Nikon S3 of 1958, even with the original drawings, is enlightening. There were even problems with manufacturing to the original drawings, as the way drawings are done now is different than they were done then. There were difficulties at every turn. The lack of "old knowledge" made their task much harder.

Nikon S3 Year 2000 Millennium Model | Camera Chronicle | Nikon Consumer

This is the account of the 2005 reproduction of the Nikon SP. It describes the difficulties faced, even with the experience gained by reproducing the S3. The engineers never were sure how the originals were made; the methods seemed to involve a lot of hand work. In particular, it describes the extreme difficulty recreating the complex viewfinder, which had been considered impossible to reproduce with modern methods. They finally succeeded, but never did figure out how it was assembled originally. They also never learned how it was so precisely adjusted originally, and resorted to modern methods unavailable when the original cameras were built.
imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-sp/index.htm


This account shows how difficult it was to create an "old style" SLR camera, the Nikon FM3a, in 2001. Putting aside the difficulty they had combining in concept a fully mechanical camera with a fully automatic camera, something never before done, they still had many issues to contend with. Even designing the dies for drawing brass plate into the shapes of the top and bottom covers was difficult, as no new cameras made that way had been introduced in a long time, and that was with the FM2 still in production! Everything from finding a vendor who could competently manufacture the meter needle mechanism, to the vendor who made the leatherette needing an engineer to delay retirement, are described. Repeated mention is made of the older engineers being necessary to work with younger engineers to make the project succeed.

Nikon FM3A | Camera Chronicle | Nikon Consumer

 

[lxdude]

Maybe - but maybe not. A film camera sure isn't rocket science, but still, if you look at your average product development process in the manufacturing industry, it's always a couple of processes happening at the same time. There's the product development track, but there's also process development, underlying technology development and of course the various administrative and strategic processes in the business area. The more technical processes ultimately manifest themselves in the tangible product, but you can't always reconstruct them entirely based on just the resulting product. So recreating a product, even with today's more advanced technology, is likely going to involve a couple of moments of "how the heck did they do that", as well as a few "why on earth did they do it this way" to be followed with some instances of "oh, now I see..." a couple of prototypes later. Keep in mind also that the product you make is influenced by the (im)possibilities of manufacturing technology, so studying a product from let's say 40 years ago can involve a couple of riddles that make perfect sense if you know the nature of the manufacturing processes at the time.

And that's not even addressing the obvious issue of the present generation of engineers likely never having been bothered by questions of how to handle film in a camera. There's likely a couple of particularities in this, which were all figured out a couple of decades ago, and that can only indirectly and partly be implied from studying a particular camera.

Long story short, I think it's certainly helpful to involve a couple of old geezers in a project like this as it'll likely progress a lot faster that way.

I think it's an interesting exercise; over the years, I've talked to hundreds of people involved in the manufacturing industry (many different domains, functions, types of organizations) and one of the common occurrences is that we forget yesterday's technology nearly as fast as we introduce new innovations.

Dead on. Very well described.

Add to it the fact that sometimes vendors go out of business, and with them goes much of their product knowledge. If no other vendor is found, it can leave a business hamstrung. Even the US military and NASA have encountered this. Sometimes raw materials are no longer available, or are no longer even legal. Without sufficient demand, replacements won't be developed. The film industry is one that is well acquainted with this problem.
The last fully mechanical Pentax cameras were the MX and the K1000, both in 1976. The MX was made till 1985, while the K1000, with its special niche in history, continued until 1997. So there have been no new fully mechanical Pentax models since 1976, and none even produced in 25 years. Pentax will be recreating the past.

 

[koraks]

Add to it the fact that sometimes vendors go out of business, and with them goes much of their product knowledge.

Indeed. And in the case of firms like Pentax, this is even more complicated. Much of the component production must have been done in-house when the mostly mechanical cameras of yesteryear were produced, with part of the manufacturing being done outside the firm, likely as much as possible within the keiretsu Pentax was at that moment part of - which I suspect is the same Fuyo group they're part of as a Ricoh brand today. Anyway, those fine mechanics manufacturing shops are likely nearly entirely gone by now, leaving only a small prototyping capacity. Any mechanical manufacturing will have to be outsourced, which means that supplier development must take place. A complicating factor is that this will likely involve the inherently conflicting requirements of low volumes and high quality requirements, which equals consequences such as expensive, prone to delays/disruptions etc. The landscape of small component manufacturing is entirely different today from what it was when let's say the K1000 was made. This will have huge consequences for how the product will have to be designed; engineering choices that made perfect sense in 1970 or so would be impossible today - and vice versa. So this is another reason why reverse engineering an existing product can be educational at a conceptual level, but it doesn't remove the need to engineer the product as a brand new one from the ground up.

 

[Agulliver]

"all they have to do is".....

Nope. It's really not that simple, as others have explained. Old knowledge dies quickly. Just look how fast the change from cine cameras to camcorders killed the super 8 camera market and within a decade it was practically impossible to make a new super 8 camera. Look how Logmar/Kodak have spent years trying. Canon were the last mainstream manufacturer and were approached in the late 90s and they explained that even then they had no blueprints, no parts, no tooling, nobody in the company left who had designed super 8 cameras.

Look at cassette decks. All the major players from a market that was ubiquitous from the 1960s into the early 2000s have been asked and NONE can manufacture a hi-fi cassette deck. Not a single one. The knowledge has all gone. The tooling has all gone. There are no blueprints. There is not the ability to reverse engineer a 90s cassette deck because nobody in the world makes certain parts.

Pentax are probably the best placed to do this because they kept their blueprints. They've reached out to retired engineers and clearly have a culture where the younger engineers respect their elders allowing them to work together. It will take a few years, no doubt. And in that time I full expect people to demand news and ask monthly where the "promised" new Pentax is. The fact is that in the video, the chap says they may not succeed. But they're seriously trying, and that is to be supported.

This does, for sure, add to the evidence that there's some sort of film revival going on.

But it's just a fad. Nothing to see. Going to fade out any time now. Any time. Just you watch. Going to fade out. Mark my words.

 

[lxdude]

Indeed. And in the case of firms like Pentax, this is even more complicated. Much of the component production must have been done in-house when the mostly mechanical cameras of yesteryear were produced, with part of the manufacturing being done outside the firm, likely as much as possible within the keiretsu Pentax was at that moment part of - which I suspect is the same Fuyo group they're part of as a Ricoh brand today. Anyway, those fine mechanics manufacturing shops are likely nearly entirely gone by now, leaving only a small prototyping capacity. Any mechanical manufacturing will have to be outsourced, which means that supplier development must take place. A complicating factor is that this will likely involve the inherently conflicting requirements of low volumes and high quality requirements, which equals consequences such as expensive, prone to delays/disruptions etc. The landscape of small component manufacturing is entirely different today from what it was when let's say the K1000 was made. This will have huge consequences for how the product will have to be designed; engineering choices that made perfect sense in 1970 or so would be impossible today - and vice versa. So this is another reason why reverse engineering an existing product can be educational at a conceptual level, but it doesn't remove the need to engineer the product as a brand new one from the ground up.

Well stated. It's not just the reverse-engineering- it's the putting into production! The pitfalls are many. Whatever the product, there are always production issues, even when it's a modern, currently made product and its mass production process has been well sorted. Small quantity production of complex devices is more challenging to do successfully, and even more so to do profitably.

 

[Moose22]

no new cameras made that way had been introduced in a long time, and that was with the FM2 still in production!

Thanks for the links. Makes me appreciate my S3 Y2000 that much more.


And it is interesting to note the FM2 was still in production when developing the FM3A. The F3, too, at least when development started. Those cameras were in production for about 20 years! The FA was the last in that body style in 1983, the FM2 and F3 in 81 and 80 if I remember right. That was a VERY long time gap before they did the FM3A.

Pentax has my full faith, I believe they can do this and I am happy they're going to try. But it's not going to be easy. I'm guessing they're not expecting it to be easy, either.

 

[Henning Serger]

Excellent news!
But not surprising for me. For me it has never been the question whether one of the established japanese digital camera manufacturers will enter again the film camera market, but only when this will happen. And which manufacturer will be the first (Pentax was my assumption ).
Now it happens even a bit earlier than expected.
No surprise for me that it will be Ricoh/Pentax first. Because they have a very good basis for that technologically, and it makes perfect sense for them in their general business strategy serving certain market segments and niches.

I've explained it several times here:
The digital camera production is in a huge crisis for years: During the last 12 years this market collapsed and has lost more than 93% (!!) of its unit volume.
The unit volume of digital camera production (CIPA base) will fell below 7 million units p.a. soon.
For comparison:
1) In 2000/2001 more than 40 million film cameras have been sold p.a. (CIPA + non-CIPA base).
2) Fujifilm alone is selling meanwhile 8-10 million instax instant film cameras p.a.. So more than all digital camera manufacturers together with their digital camera production.
So meanwhile in total even more new film cameras are sold p.a. than digital cameras.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Ernst-Jan]

It would be great if it actually happens, although I don't know why they need to go through all these different models to get to a mechanical camera. All they need to do is reverse engineer any successful film camera, and that takes care of any "lost" knowledge, it would be right there in front of them. It really isn't rocket science, these things were perfected eons ago.

Having worked in marketing and market research, I know if this is true they've already run the numbers based on expected sales to which demographics, and to what price range.

We'll see, I'm not from Missouri, but have their same idea of show me.

You need to know the materials, the tolerances, the production process, the assembly order etc.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I'm waiting for Pentax, or any of the big guys, to give us a full frame digital sensor that can be easily retrofit into existing film cameras. The sensor could go in the film plane, and the electronics and battery in the film compartment. No display screen, and limited settings, due to size and power constraints, but that sort of matches the film ethic too. If they plan on making a new SLR, then why not something that could easily do both film and digital via an easy back swap. A stripped down 70's styling seems to be what people want these days, so why not something that can do both film and digital with that same mindset?

I'd gladly pay a grand to get a digital sensor that could fit in my film cameras. This would give me the freedom to shoot with both digital and film, using something I'm already comfortable with. Some medium format cameras used to offer this ability, but most of them have gone out of business now, or are out of any realistic pricing for the average person.

Young people that want to try film are clearly looking for something different from the instant gratification you get from a cell phone. Bring back the magic of discovery by eliminating display screens and forcing people to think about what they're trying to capture, instead of just clicking at anything.

C'mon, Pentax, give this ol' geezer the goods!

No chance. This will never happen. It is a fantasy and you know it. People have dreamed about the magical digital insert for 20 years. Leica came closest with their DMR unit that attached to the R8 and R9 bodies. But it was expensive. Kodak tried this early in the digital era using Nikon bodies.

Leica Digital-Modul-R Review - 'R' You Ready for This? - My Passion Camera System - By Jarrod Sams

Digital-Modul-R has been criticized as being too little too late for the brand but it provides an experience unique to any other 35mm SLR

www.35mmc.com

You can buy a new Rebel or equivalent camera for a few hundred $$s. Why would a manufacturer spend R&D on a troublesome insert for antique mechanical cameras?

If you want digital/film interchangeability, look at Hasselblad, the new Rollei Hy6, and Alpa.

 

[Arcadia4]

Motor drive compacts and slrs seem potentially an easier proposition as the technology is not so old although its still around 16yrs since pentax produced one. Presumably why they were listed first. Only leica probably still have all the know how in the fully mechanical camera sector.

The quality compact part of the market is where prices are highest and the cameras are dying fastest so that also makes sense from a sales perspective. In contrast no real lack of supply of 35mm slrs. Although they focus on Pentax presumably reviving the GR film series would tick the ‘advanced compact’ box fairly well

 

[Paul Howell]

What surprises me is it is Pentax and not Cosina that is putting money into a new film camera. As noted by others, making the tools and dyes is the expensive part of the project. Wonder if the new camera will be made in Japan or outsourced?

 

[miha]

I hope they will come out with a modern AF camera, not with the metusalem as seen in the teaser video.

 

[Helge]

It would be great if it actually happens, although I don't know why they need to go through all these different models to get to a mechanical camera. All they need to do is reverse engineer any successful film camera, and that takes care of any "lost" knowledge, it would be right there in front of them. It really isn't rocket science, these things were perfected eons ago.

You are obviously not an engineer or product designer.

Having worked in marketing and market research, I know if this is true they've already run the numbers based on expected sales to which demographics, and to what price range.

We'll see, I'm not from Missouri, but have their same idea of show me.

Oh, that explaines it.

Developing a product as complex as a camera is a Herculean effort.
The only thing that allowed it to become somewhat a routine job, was the vast amount of accumulated and tacit knowledge in the staff, and “in the air” at various camera manufacturers.

It’s not enough to produce a prototype that works, and then mass manufacture it.
It should be easy and pain-free to manufacture, you should have your supply chain in place for the parts and components for years, and you should do thorough user, and usability testing to determine if there is any kinks or failure points that could become super expensive down the line.
It’s a long arduous, iterative process, and different for each slightly different product category.